How Do Raskolnikov's View Of Justice

Justice is a principle that people have pursued for centuries and views on it can be affected by many things. Religion and morality can be a huge influence on what one perceives as justice. Since morality is directly influenced by religion, the religion that one might base their life around is important to see what they believe is morally correct and just. A lot of people that have a clearer view of the world will tell you that “to reach full agreement on all rules” in today’s society is going to be impossible, but that doesn’t mean that there aren’t things that are clearly unjust and clearly just. (Blackham 243). In Crime and Punishment by Fyodor Dostoevsky the main character, Raskolnikov, when asked “... and do you believe in God?” he

Since he seems not to show any religious connections besides the statement that he believes in a supreme being, one could associate him with the humanist group or at least a group similar to them. Thus, the question arises: in what ways and to what extent do Raskolnikov’s conflicted morals affect his view of and search for justice? He definitely lets his emotion cloud his judgment and when making clear moral decisions it important to keep emotions out of the decision-making process. He also makes decisions that don’t quite make sense to somebody that might know how to make a morally sound decision. While reading this assessment of Raskolnikov’s behavior involving morals and their effect on his view of what justice is, remember that “humanism is an ethical philosophy in which [mankind] is central” and that in this case “morality is rooted in a sensitivity to the interests and needs of others, a rational awareness that my good is tied up with the good of others”. (Kurtz

His decisions would depend on whether he sees himself as an ‘extraordinary’ man or an ‘ordinary’ man. By the conversation between Raskolnikov, Razumihim, and Porfiry we can see that Raskolnikov does not “consider [himself] a Mahomet or a Napoleon, nor any personage of that kind” he continues to say that since he is not one of the ‘extraordinary’ people he could not tell them how he was supposed to act. Since he states clearly that he does not consider himself as such he has no right to act as the theory states ‘extraordinary’ people act. So he, therefore, has no right to commit the crime that he does. It is strange that even though he doesn’t believe himself to be morally superior, that he still goes through with murdering Alyona and Lizaveta Ivanovna. He recalls a conversation when students were talking about murdering Alyona and the students thought they could take her money if they used it to do good things. By remembering these conversations, he slowly convinced himself that this murder was not a bad thing. Even if he has convinced himself that this is the correct thing to do this is not morally correct or just in any way. Albeit she is crotchety and not a very nice old woman, that does not justify murder. This decision and the way he has brainwashed himself obstructs his view of justice and what is